United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

Search

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,447
Tokens
You don't even try to hide the fact that you're a troll do you?

Keynesians live in denial.

If you've seen one, you've seen them all.

Same bullshit talking points. Same bullshit discredited partisan charts. No proof. No facts. No evidence.

Too much government crowding out the private sector = no growth. So simple a child can understand...but not a Keynesian.

Government expenditures in the US are almost half of the GDP and our economic illiterate troll calls it "austerity"...can't make this shit up.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,908
Tokens
Anyway, you have to love when an economic illiterate takes to the Internet to pronounce federal spending as a % of GDP - a measure that is included in every OMB budget document & every CBO budget report, mind you - a "meaningless statistic"

It is funny how it becomes "meaningless" when it shows your idiotic premise to be a lie.

In my very first response to this post I said the dope who started the thread does not know what "nominal spending" means.

I was correct.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Anyway, you have to love when an economic illiterate takes to the Internet to pronounce federal spending as a % of GDP - a measure that is included in every OMB budget document & every CBO budget report, mind you - a "meaningless statistic"

It is funny how it becomes "meaningless" when it shows your idiotic premise to be a lie.

In my very first response to this post I said the dope who started the thread does not know what "nominal spending" means.

I was correct.

Lol, you didn't know what nominal spending was and you showed a spending as % of GDP chart, lol. Fun stuff!! In a meeting at 2 to 3. I'll be back to make you my bitch again.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,908
Tokens
Lol, you didn't know what nominal spending was and you showed a spending as % of GDP chart, lol..

I did not show "nominal spending" as a % of GDP chart.

How do we know that you don't know what nominal spending is?

The headline you typed is false.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
I did not show "nominal spending" as a % of GDP chart.

How do we know that you don't know what nominal spending is?

The headline you typed is false.

I didn't say you showed nominal spending to GDP chart. I still thinks its funny how you thought your chart disproved what I was saying, lol. Conservatives, got to love them. They try so hard yet are so dumb.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
[h=2]Ease Off Spending Cuts to Boost U.S. Recovery[/h]The United States could spur growth by adopting a more balanced and gradual pace of fiscal consolidation, especially at a time when monetary policy has limited room to support the recovery further, the International Monetary Fund said after wrapping up its annual review of the world’s largest economy.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/CAR061413A.htm
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
The spending results of this Administration should lead to anyone who believes government spending creates jobs being laughed off the public stage.

The spending results of this administration is far lower than any administration before it. Maybe we should do what Reagan did and spend like crazy, then maybe there will be more jobs, lol. You guys are idiots.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Ronnie(And GWB) were certainly more generous to Federal Workers in doling out COLA Pay Raises than the Miserly Obama.






Year
Pay Raise Retiree COLA (CSRS) Retiree COLA (FERS) Year Pay Raise Retiree COLA (CSRS) Retiree COLA (FERS)
1970 6% 5.6%
1971 6% 4.5%
1972 10.9% 4.8%
1973 4.8% 6.1%
1974 5.5% 12.2%
1975 5% 12.8%
1976 4.8% 5.4%
1977 7% 9.3%
1978 5.5% 7.4%
1979 7% 11.1%
1980 9.1% 14.2%
1981
4.8% 4.4%
1982 4% 8.7%
1983 0% 3.9%
1984 4% 0%
1985 3.5% 3.5%
1986 0% 0%
1987 3% 1.3%
1988 2% 4.2% 3.2% 1989 4.1% 4% 3%
1990 3.6% 4.7% 3.7% 1991 4.1% 5.4% 4.4%
1992 4.2% 3.7% 2.7% 1993 3.7% 3% 2%
1994 4% 2.6% 2% 1995 2.6% 2.8% 2%
1996 2.4% 2.6% 2% 1997 3% 2.9% 2%
1998 2.9% 2.1% 2% 1999 3.6% 1.3% 1.3%
2000 4.8% 2.4% 2% 2001 3.7% 3.5% 2.5%
2002 4.6% 2.6% 2% 2003 4.1% 1.4% 1.4%
2004 4.1% 2.1% 2% 2005 3.5% 2.7% 2%
2006 3.1% 4.1% 3.1% 2007 2.2% 3.3% 2.3%
2008 3.5% 2.3% 2% 2009 3.9% 5.8% 4.8%
2010 2% 0% 0% 2011 0% 0% 0%
2012 0% 3.6% 2.6% 2013
0%


 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Too bad Obama can't be more like Reagan! Big Spending works... austerity fails!

e3de5bf8c784a789d46101968d396fe7.jpg
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,908
Tokens
I didn't say you showed nominal spending to GDP chart. I still thinks its funny how you thought your chart disproved what I was saying, lol. Conservatives, got to love them. They try so hard yet are so dumb.

The chart did disprove what you're saying. Especially since you actually do not know what the % of GDP actually means. You have no idea how this figures are calculated nor do you have any idea what nominal spending means as the title of this thread was shown to be a lie.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,908
Tokens
The spending results of this administration is far lower than any administration before it. Maybe we should do what Reagan did and spend like crazy, then maybe there will be more jobs, lol. You guys are idiots.

You must be really busy at your "job" and stuff
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
The chart did disprove what you're saying. Especially since you actually do not know what the % of GDP actually means. You have no idea how this figures are calculated nor do you have any idea what nominal spending means as the title of this thread was shown to be a lie.

The fact you don't know basic math is astounding, lol.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,908
Tokens
The spending results of this administration is far lower than any administration before it.


In the first 4 years of their administrations, spending (inflation adjusted 2005 $) was:


  • 19% higher under Bush than Clinton
  • 41% higher under Obama than Bush
  • 67% higher under Obama than Clinton


You're a liar.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Now he's back to posting charts from TPM.

Mind you, after the 1st chart from TPM was shown to be a lie.

You haven't shown any chart to be a lie. You are just saying they are lies because they show you that you are dumb and do not know what you are talking about.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
In the first 4 years of their administrations, spending (inflation adjusted 2005 $) was:


  • 19% higher under Bush than Clinton
  • 41% higher under Obama than Bush
  • 67% higher under Obama than Clinton


You're a liar.

You are making up numbers.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,908
Tokens
The fact you don't know basic math is astounding, lol.

You have to love when an economic illiterate takes to the Internet to pronounce federal spending as a % of GDP - a measure that is included in every OMB budget document & every CBO budget report, mind you - a "meaningless statistic"
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,996
Messages
13,576,110
Members
100,896
Latest member
fscindia2015
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com